48 Colorado College Studies. 



■/.a-ra for >:«"«, but that does not satisfy, for the phrase /.v^tv^ ro 

 ^^ur^ijAL y.ara rijv ^vw//.r^v/ is strange enough. Blaydes quotes the 

 suggestion with approval. 



Meineke proposes ~fi j'^^/^jj or «y fft';, (for w.''^rw), of which 

 the latter is certainly not" to be accepted, as there is no stress 

 ujDon the pronoun. The former, rjf y^ovi.i. had already been 

 suggested by Eeiske and is, I think rightly, accepted by Kock 

 and Kaehler. voTj/za rj" t'vw//); xivsiv is not tautological. Blaydes 

 objects, "quum zji/iFv rijv yvwiiri'^ bene dicatur, non item zji/sFy 

 voriii.a^'' after which it is strange to read in the commentary 

 "tt^v Y'-'^n-' y-'-'^ft'^"'^ — nisi corrigendum '0 r^^W/ — zi'^''/'^"'-', mente 

 id {to vorj/xa) agita"! 



Blaydes further adopts r^v (T for xuv to avoid a difficulty 

 which is only apparent, as u-bMs refers to a different activity 

 and does not contradict the ;/' a-pi/xa. 



Again in vs. 745 he reads uoto rr. assigning to /.r^rjTir^ and 

 '^uyw ft 1)1(70'^ different objects. The sense is good but the change 

 is needless, and the -^ solitarium should not needlessly "he 

 foisted into trimeters. Not satisfied with this, he offers the 



choice between abzu -e, /.ai -«/«, 7.a\ TZfUtv, xanTua, auzixa T£, 

 slza de. 



Accepting Reiske's rrj y^wp.i^ I think the passage is sound 

 without further change. 



Vs. 823. — xai (Till <fj)d<ju) T! ~fHLY;i! o ij.ahio'^ w^ijii iai',. 



So R.V. and others while many MSS. give t a'j and omit 

 -'.. For once Blaydes gives us no critical note, although he 

 follows Dindorf in rejecting the reading of R.V. Why the 

 other reading should be preferred it is hard to say, and to 

 give it to one's readers without at least noting the alternative 

 is inexcusable in an edition which claims to be critical. 



Vs. 1046. OTiij xd/.KTTO-^ i(TTl /Ml dzi/.UV TZOtSt Tu'^ U'/0[>0.. 



So the MSS. save that R. has 8si/M-aT(r> ; which, however, 

 is easily explained by the preceding yyr/.Kjmv ( Dind). All edi- 

 tors, Blaydes excei)ted, accept the reading and there is no 

 serious objection to it. Blaydes comments: "Versus valde 

 frigidus et nostro indignus. Displicet inter alia -ov «V<J/>«." 



He reads, therefore, orjy^ xd/.i(rTov aura xa\ deihWa-rov (ivdpa TiocBt, 



